Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[MIDN]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Mover n Gonky discussed this on their channel, USN’s reasoning is that if PLM is not working they’ll do a land recovery or take a barrier anyway, their jets their rules but a bold strategy Cotton…

————————————————

If there was a program to replace the T-6 and expand the syllabus taught in phase 2

M-345… took a big sip of the kool aid… it’s probably the best jet for an intermediate+ trainer

PC-21 / AT-6C if the Bobs wanted to stay turboprop for intermediate+ trainer

 

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, MIDN said:

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

Pffttt.  You just fly it into the big net.  It’s easy. 

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, MIDN said:

You absolutely would not "take a barrier" if PLM failed, it requires far more precision than a regular carrier landing and the consequence for screwing it up close to the deck is certain death

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong.

Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training.

Just posting plane porn here:

What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24

Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

[contraildash]

Just got to PIT, but this seems like its a foregone conclusion at this point. AETC/19AF aren't running FUPT as an experiment. This is the new reality, so deal with it.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Their mind was made up before the SGTOs even started.

One of the more ironic things is hearing them refer to UPT 2.5 as ‘legacy’ UPT and it not working so they need to replace it with FUPT as if someone else other than staff came up with 2.5 and they are fixing that mistake.

From the program itself, to the lack of resources, hell even the lack of housing for the influx of new students…it’s all FUPT’d up. Still unsure if they are going to attach a multi year ADSC to IPT, they certainly should. At our current graduation rate, we have AMC bound students waiting 9+ months for FTU start dates. That will only get worse.

My prediction:

1. More DORs. Especially if USAFA forces grads to FUPT.
2. Significant increase in 88/89/CRs. (This is already happening with the SGTOs)
3. We won’t meet the 1500/yr goal. We’ll run our IP cadre into the ground. Retention will get even worse.
4. Q3 rates at FTUs will increase
5. Class A rates are going to increase, I already think they are, but don’t have the data to prove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arkbird]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong.

Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training.

Just posting plane porn here:

What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24

Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use. 

[Inertia17]

57 minutes ago, Arkbird said:

PC-21 to replace the T-6, PC-24 to replace the T-1, T-50, M-346, or any other proven advanced trainer to replace the T-38 would all be great but what AETC would say is that none of these solutions save the air force money. Something something our current UPT is producing the best and most capable pilots we've ever produced or whatever buzzwords they'd use. 

Or..no T-6, no T-1. Direct IPT to T-7. 

Let's throw a bunch of Lt's fresh out of a Part 141 with no military flight training, directly into a fast jet trainer, with no instrument phase, because they learned it in Cessna's.  That is the current plan. Should be fine...